Categories

Even when we attempt to avoid the reality of power, we are ruled by it, because our only method of abolishing power is to transfer it elsewhere. At that point, a struggle for power becomes a constant event, and in the effort to “win,” everyone seems to forget that the goal of power is the thriving of the civilization.

When we speak about the absolutism of central power, the point is less that whatever the occupant of the center says goes (so that if something he says doesn’t go he must have said the wrong thing, but in that case was he really occupying the center?) than that no one can imagine anything happening without reference to the center. If I want to do something, I imagine the conditions under which the central power will allow or support it—if I think in terms of how I can do it by evading central power, I am still thinking of the center as a general constraint that must structure my thinking.

…There has to be a center because humanity is constituted through joint attention, and attention must be attention toward something, and if attention is joint that something must be at the convergence of the respective lines of vision of the attenders. The only way this object of attention can be held in place is if it is desired by all of those attending upon it, and the only way it can be desired rather than appropriated is if its appropriation is proscribed; and the only way its appropriation can be proscribed is if the participants on the scene constitute this proscription by offering signs to each other that they will suspend any attempt to appropriate the object. The source of the sign(s) offered must be a reversal of the movement towards the object, and this reversal must result from the fear of violence produced by this novel, collective, unconstrained rush toward the object.

Joint attention directs toward an object of power or a purpose to the society. That center must then be sacred, or defended by all, so that no one seizes it and uses it for their own ends. In turn, the center shapes how people think about their own lives, goals, and what behaviors they are willing to engage in.

With diversity as with equality, society lacks a center; its goal is its method, meaning that it applies equality in order to have equality and the same with diversity, and so it is caught in a feedback loop of always intensifying its drive toward an ideological extreme. This cuts reality out of the equation, essentially appropriating the center by replacing it with a simpler, more narrowly defined goal.

In addition, diversity creates a society of many groups, each of whom avoid appropriating their own center by attempting to appropriate the center of society as a whole. If they do not attempt to seize power, they have attempted to appropriate their own center by failing to act out its unstated goal, which is to have self-rule and dominion over all that is around them.

Not surprisingly, diversity destroys civilizations. This is not, as many surmise, through the bad behavior of a single group, but through the good behavior of every group, because since each group acts in its own interests alone, no two groups can have fully overlapping objectives, leading to unending conflict.

In the old narrative, there were a few evil racists who hated people of other racial and ethnic groups. If we removed the power that these racists had, the theory went, then everyone could live in harmony.

In reality, we see another instance of humanity denying nature. Different groups exist for a reason, namely that if a group wants its own values to persist, it must separate itself and then encode those values into its DNA through years of selective breeding. This is how we achieved different groups with different abilities.

That “different abilities” part, even if those abilities are not linearly measured in a superior/inferior scale, enrages egalitarians. Those people are essentially individualists who want to remove the ability of someone else to know better than the individualist does, so they declare all people equal, essentially abolishing differences in ability, talent, and wisdom. This makes the entire herd feel happy because everyone is accepted and, they think, will dwell in peace because there is nothing to fight over.

So far, throughout history, this approach has failed every time it has been tried along with other idealistic notions such as the planned community, bohemian lifestyle, and socialist economies. It denies reality so that the human ego will feel good and therefore, the group will do as the individualists want, namely to let the individualists do whatever they want in exchange for universal tolerance, freedom, equality, etc.

America came late to the equality game since a frontier nation has no need for equality. You go out there, tough it out against the elements, hostile tribes, disease, famine, and your own learning curve, and the ones that survive prosper. Under those conditions, charity seems wise but a support net seems to reverse the triumph of those who prevail against the harsh environment.

After WW2, however, America got into the equality game first to show our opposition to Hitler, and next to be “better than” the Soviets, who were after all offering what seemed to be more equality than we were. Instead, we demonstrated more prosperity, but in order to avoid socialist revolt, implemented socialist programs to buy off our citizens.

At the same time, the Democrats hatched a plan to get rid of the remaining holdouts against socialism. These people were of the majority group and tradition, so the Left imported third world people to serve as allies to the Left and to break up that original group, replacing it with a cultureless, alienated, and atomized herd which could be manipulated.

This worked well for over fifty years, but on the semicentennial anniversary of the changes in our immigration law, it became clear that everything was rapidly falling apart. We had a black president, but race relations were worse than ever, because now that every group felt itself equal, each was fighting for control.

That is part of the “diversity pattern,” and we can see it unfolding before our eyes as the different minority groups within our diversity are attacking one another over a clash of values and identities:

“The ADL is CONSTANTLY attacking black and brown people,” Women’s March organizer Tamika Mallory posted on Twitter. “This is a sign that they are tone deaf and not committed to addressing the concerns of black folk.” Mallory came under fire earlier this year after attending a Feb. 25 speech by Louis Farrakhan in which the Nation of Islam leader said “the Jews have control over” the FBI.

Cat Brooks, the co-founder of the Anti Police-Terror Project, told ABC News that she agreed with Mallory, saying, “You can’t be a piece of an anti-bias training when you openly support a racist, oppressive and brutal colonization of Palestine.”

The Washington chapter of Black Lives Matter, meanwhile, tweeted that the ADL was “ultra pro-cop,” and cited a 2016 letter in which Greenblatt said “ADL has not endorsed the Black Lives Matter movement” because “a small minority of [its] leaders … supported anti-Israel — and at times anti-Semitic — positions.” Greenblatt’s letter didn’t identify the leaders in question.

What do you do when your diversity is at war within itself? We have seen an uptick in such events for some time, especially in minority-majority cities in the southern half of the country where incoming Hispanics, Asians, and middle eastern people are driving African-Americans out of their traditional economic opportunities and neighborhoods. I saw it twenty-five years ago when open warfare broke out between black and Hispanic communities. We should expect to see more.

Those that we might have identified as “racist” in past years tended to make this argument: some groups can assimilate, but some cannot, and those groups also tend to be criminal, dirty, stupid, violent, mean, and parasitic. In other words, they supported diversity in theory except for some groups. As time went on, however, it became clear that the problem was not whatever group was complaining that week, but diversity itself.

Diversity divides a nation. It can no longer have a strong values system, identity, heritage, rules, or social order once there are people with different cultures within it. Even more, those different groups are used to hybridize with the original group, breeding out the DNA coding for its set of values, creating a permanent cultureless grey race which is wholly dependent on Leftist government, a group which in turn becomes its perpetual rulers.

We recognize now that diversity is dysfunction. It was never meant to work, only to destroy the majority so that Leftists could rule. It will not lead to peace, but to constant low-grade infighting until life becomes too maddening to worry about anything other than the very basics of modern life, like jobs and consumer shopping. In turn, over time, the wealth we built up for generations will be erased, and replaced with a typical chaotic and dysfunctional third world nation.

It is easy to destroy a population: demoralize it. Induce it into degenerate behavior. Replace images of it with the Other, idealize the Other. Then they self-destruct and you can escape guilt. What no one realizes: this is not being done to whites alone, but to every ethnic group imported into diversity. None will win, and none will remain.

Deputy commissioner Craig Mackey said the “absolutely feasible” change would see the Met assessing the level of risk faced by a caller when deciding whether to send officers for a “face to face service”.

He said members of the public who might be prioritised in future included people with learning difficulties, the elderly and people who did not speak English as their first language.

Healthy middle-aged men such as himself might miss out. Mr Mackey said burglary victims would “probably always get a service” but that “vehicle crime, those sorts of things” were among the types of offence where police might not attend unless the person affected was vulnerable.

The story behind the story: the police want more money, so they are trying to scare the voters. This is an age-old tactic, but this time it might backfire because the voters already expect little from the police, who are too busy busting people for un-PC tweets to follow up on old fashioned crimes. In a larger sense, how anyone expected egalitarianism not to go this route is baffling. Egalitarianism is an “ism,” meaning a pursuit of, so it enforces equality, which can only be done by raising up the lower at the expense of the higher. Therefore, everything goes to the lower. If you succeed, society hates you. It wants more compliant drones instead.

I bring all this up not to ding Obama participating in a corporate whitewash, but to remind liberals and Democrats that, until very recently, this was who we liberals were. We drank the Kool-Aid. We believed the hype. Facebook wasn’t a “danger to democracy”, we thought. Facebook was democracy.

Someone might want to point out to him that democracy follows a similar pattern to Facebook: the herd, “set free,” pursue their selfish interests, and this creates chaos from which are birthed a series of corrupt controllers who become increasingly authoritarian in order to keep the unpunished herd in line. Facebook just cuts out the middleman and goes straight for control.

While DACA recipients may feel alone at times, the National Restaurant Association is standing with them – along with businesses across the country – in urging Congress and the administration to find a solution that provides a path to lawful permanent residency and avoids the economic damage that would come from a mass deportation of these young people. After all, these individuals are the backbone of every community across our nation.

It’s always about restaurants. Leftists, as modern domesticated neotenes, see the world like a preschool: they do schoolwork, get graded, and then can buy things with their grades. They like restaurants because they are easier than family order, planning ahead, and thinking about the purpose and meaning of life.

In the meantime, this article demonstrates exactly why journalism is in such trouble. Restaurant workers are not “the backbone of every community across our nation.” They are low-paid labor working in a luxury industry that, if it went away, would do little more than inconvenience us. We are pursuing the false god of things that are currently profitable and ignoring what we really should pay attention to, which is things that generate value under any circumstance.

Promethean culture-bringers tend to stand in opposition to this ethic. Artists deconstruct and challenge paradigms of power. Inventors disrupt established orders. Comedians provide a softened way to speak harsh truths that would otherwise go unspoken. Academics poke holes in established doctrines and question the nature of accepted reality. Journalists afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. And so on. This is the process by which, slowly but surely, societies change and wrongs are righted if only over generations. It’s the method that gives us the confidence to assert, despite frequent steps backward, that the moral arc of the universe does bend slowly toward justice.

Trump/Farage are a replacement for contemporary conservatives, who existed merely to keep business working, as far as anyone can tell. They certainly failed to stop the Leftist takeover. However, “Promethean culture” is in fact nothing more than the herd chasing its own tail. All of this “new” and “disruptive” ideation has not amounted to anything fundamentally different from what was en vogue during the French Revolution. The takeaway here is that conservatives should not want respect from these people, but to replace them and deport them.

In this post-truth world, intelligence agencies are in the bunker with some unlikely mates: journalism, academia, the courts, law enforcement and science — all of which, like intelligence gathering, are evidence-based. Intelligence shares a broader duty with these other truth-tellers to preserve the commitment and ability of our society to base important decisions on our best judgment of what constitutes objective reality.

Deep state bigwig writes oleaginous prose. What he is trying to conceal is that his version of “intelligence” failed because it is a ruse. Empiricism requires honesty. When not applied openly, it results in simply propaganda one step removed. The “objective” thinkers carefully design categories of evidence they accept so that it supports their conclusions, then argue from that evidence toward broader application where none is warranted. Science is in the middle of a replicability crisis, journalists worldwide are discredited, the courts seem like robots applying ever-broader standards as in Obergefell v. Hodges, and academia has made a mockery of itself. Those are not intelligence… they are filters, and they are designed to confirm an assumption that Leftist “progress” toward Utopia is the only path for humanity.

“That wall has started, we have 1.6 billion (dollars),” Trump said at a campaign rally in Washington, Michigan.

“We come up again on September 28th and if we don’t get border security we will have no choice, we will close down the country because we need border security.”

…A $1.3 trillion spending bill, which Trump signed last month, will keep the government funded through the end of September. A government shutdown ahead of the November mid-elections is unlikely to be supported by his fellow Republicans who are keen to keep control of the U.S. Congress.

Republicans have a choice: get with the “populist” future or get discarded as part of the Regime. People were tolerant of Leftism when it seemed to be rising over a failing old world order, but now we see that Leftism has not only failed to deliver on its promises, but has made life worse, and the old order was actually correct, just unpopular. Those Republicans in Congress will not be keeping control if they do not move from the old new order to the new old order.

…But the S&P 500’s performance pales in comparison to that of Aetna Insurance. The health insurance giant saw its stock value go up by 445 percent in that same time frame. However, Aetna was outshone by Humana, which saw its stock go up 608 percent. Not to be outdone, United Health saw its stock grow by 655 percent. But the real winner in that time frame was Cigna, whose stock value grew by a whopping 866 percent.

While we’ve heard the term “collusion” bandied about incorrectly for over a year regarding the fairytale of Trump/Russia collusion in the 2016 election, the term actually applies to businesses. The term is defined as “a secret arrangement between two parties whose interest seemingly conflict to commit fraud upon another party.”

We need to realize that health care providers and insurance companies have created a mutually beneficial racket. While on the surface it would appear they’re competing, by the numbers, they’re actually not and have created a very beneficial system for themselves while sticking it to the American people.

The story never changes. People invent something good. Then everyone else shows up and demands their share. Out come the rules, the regulations, the procedures, and the bureaucrats! The task is no longer whatever that “something good” was; now it is managing people, which gives the “everyone else” contingent jobs and wealth. Then again, if they could not invent this in the first place, why should we keep them around? Free healthcare wowed the voters who were suffering from the delayed shock of bad 1990s monetary and lending policy. They grasped at straws. Now they are getting it good and hard for their factless, clueless, and guileless enthusiasm.

The asylum-seekers began the day with anticipation, traveling in red-and-white school buses under police escort to a beachfront rally in Tijuana, where a steel fence juts out into the Pacific Ocean. They sang the Honduran national anthem, and supporters on the San Diego side of the fence waved a Honduran flag.

After a final briefing from lawyers and minutes before they were to begin a short walk to the border crossing, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan announced that the San Ysidro border crossing, the nation’s busiest, had “reached capacity” for people without legal documents and that asylum-seekers may need to wait in Mexico temporarily.

Trump has commented frequently on the caravan since it started in Mexico on March 25 near the Guatemala border and headed north to Tijuana. His broadsides came as his administration vowed to end what officials call “legal loopholes” and “catch-and-release” policies that allow people requesting asylum to be released from custody into the U.S. while their claims make their way through the courts, which can take years.

Trump shut them down in the best way possible: he refused to roll over and make special accommodations for these snowflakes who, like all other migrants, are economic opportunists, not refugees. In the meantime, diversity still does not work because it ends in racial enmity and pathology. Time to shut it down.

The 34-year-old dictator plans to invite foreign journalists to witness the shutdown of North Korea’s main nuclear weapons test site in May, South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s spokesman told reporters on Sunday. The revelation came shortly after Kim pledged “complete denuclearization” at a meeting with Moon on Friday, without providing further detail.

While all of us want an end to the terror of the Korean war and disunification, it is time to be cautious here: Kim is playing this one too masterfully to not have an objective in mind. His South Korean counterpart is thoroughly Leftist; perhaps he envisions a unified Leftist Korea. Another thought is that he intends to make the North Korean brand squeaky clean so that he can take over high-take manufacturing labor from China, who is slowing down as first-world style accoutrements spread in the country. The world needs another source of cheap, reliable labor, and Kim could step into that gap and become powerful just as China did before him. If Korea unifies, any conditions he imposes on the South — which is currently too emotional to think clearly, and in the grips of a Leftist regime — will be respected, allowing him to maintain the power he has, or expand it.

However, industrial output in February, fell by 1.6% in Germany, the eurozone’s largest economy. That slide came as overall business activity in Europe had begun to lag amid persistent concerns of the imposition of tariffs by President Trump’s administration on billions of goods to the U.S.

…Against that backdrop, inflation has been percolating, with commodities, particularly West Texas Intermediate crude-oil future CLM8, -1.01% gaining sharply in recent weeks. WTI, the U.S. oil benchmark, has risen 12.5% so far this year, with more than 5% of that advance coming in just the past 30 days.

That rise in commodities translates into higher costs for corporations and consumers alike, higher costs that may be tough to swallow amid any genuine signs of pullback in economic expansion in its ninth year in the U.S.

This is a repeat of what happened during the Bush years. Clinton pursued a classic Leftist demand-based monetary policy which created rapid growth but did not generate productive value to match, which meant that a strong correction was coming. Obama did the same thing, and left the same void of actual value which is going to require a market correction.

On average, gentile elites voted for the Republican candidate by a margin of 3.75 points. The general public did so by an average margin of 7.75 points. Jewish elites, by contrast, on average voted for the democrat candidate by a margin of 67.25 points. Because Jews accounted for 28% of the total sample of elites, we can estimate that Jews pushed the “elite vote” an average 18.83 points to the left per election, moving the totality of American elites from the right to the left.

Political ideology data was consistent with voting data. 43% of the general public, 42% of gentile elites, and 12% of Jewish elites described themselves as conservative, while 74% of Jewish elites, 37% of gentile elites, and 21% of the general public described itself as liberal. For the total sample of elites, 48.48% described themselves as liberal while just 33.6% described themselves as conservative. Thus, the influence of Jewish elites switched mean ideological bias of elites from conservative by a margin of 5 to liberal by a margin of 15.

The primary issue for any group other than the majority is discrimination, because it is what they logically expect to receive when the majority realizes that diversity is unstable. Jews are distinctive in that they are highly successful, so their actions have more repercussions than those of other minority groups. However, this creates an inevitable backlash which has resulted in them being ejected from European nations dozens of times and Holocausted once. This is one of the many ways that diversity destroys both host (majority) and vector (minority).

Monarchy in America has its most frank proponents in a fringe alt-right group generally called the “neo-reactionaries.” Without undertaking here the mammoth task of outlining neo-reactionary belief in full, we can perhaps summarize the school of thought as a belief that liberal values — meaning everything from modern progressivism to female suffrage and racial equality, depending on the particular brand of neo-reactionary — are deleterious to society and are pushed by elite liberal organs (collectively denoted the “Cathedral”) that subvert whatever pretense of democracy still exists in the West. What’s the solution? Naturally, “a Stuart restoration in an independent England.”

…American politics is as dysfunctional as it is in large part because we are a diverse, disparate nation and we have abandoned many of the mechanisms that once served to localize, decentralize, and democratize policymaking.

American politics has become dysfunctional because democracy is always dysfunctional and we abandoned our original elitism and instead enfranchised everyone we could, resulting in insane mob rule. 2016 showed us that the Constitution is dead because our country has been turned against us, and simply localizing just means that the federal government will ultimately be used against those local authorities. We have come to the end of the grand experiment in American exceptionalism; diversity, a grand experiment that is ending in the soft genocide of all of its participants, has shown us that we have gone so far off the rails that there is no restoration, only going a different direction. This is consistent, by the way, with how democracy has traditionally been viewed.

For years, Republican voters were promised constitutionalist judges, fiscal probity and immigration enforcement. We got John “Obamacare” Roberts, runaway deficits, de facto open borders and multiple tries at Gang of Eight amnesty. If that weren’t enough, Republican believers in American primacy were led into a series of misguided wars by a small but determined foreign policy claque focused on implementing a policy of moral imperialism that runs counter to this country’s history and values.

…American conservatism isn’t dead or dying. It’s thriving, but you’d have to look outside the Beltway and the legacy institutions to see it. This once-in-a-century reformation is revitalizing a political movement that was in danger of fading into irrelevance.

…This conservative renaissance is young but vigorous. It embraces — but is also bigger than — Trump. While the American left is absorbed in a game of competitive victimhood, the American right is engaged in a serious debate about how best to develop and sustain civil society, how to foster good citizens and how to sustain U.S. peace and prosperity in the face of unprecedented challenges from an aggressive, confident China.

American conservatism lost track of itself in the 1960s by again trying to find a way to “work within” an egalitarian system. Now we have seen that the end results of diversity, equality, and democracy are the genocide of our peoples and the destruction of those cultures. Consequently, conservatism is taking a new approach: deny any value to egalitarianism at all, and instead focus on realistic policy and social conservative values.

If Braun can parlay his wealth and business record to the nomination, he’ll be proving a central maxim of the Republican Party dating to the tea-party era: Experience is a liability. Trump was an extreme continuation of the trends animating the GOP throughout Obama’s presidency, where inexperienced outsiders toppled entrenched politicians with stunning regularity. As veteran GOP strategist Alex Castellanos put it: “To renew ourselves, Republicans must always be agents of change; outsiders on the side of the people and not the establishment that requires transformation.”

Entrenched politicians are those who believe in The System. Outsiders see that the system does not work, and if we do not guide it, the professional liars will use the credulity of the herd as a means of staying in power. If no one talks about the real issues, politicians talk about fake ones, and the voters pick the best option they see, being unable to change the direction of discourse because a herd is just a mass of chaotic animals. They need a strong voice to unify them who is not interested in profiting from The System.

The Nazis idolized many aspects of American society: the cult of sport, Hollywood production values, the mythology of the frontier… In 1928, Hitler remarked, approvingly, that white settlers in America had “gunned down the millions of redskins to a few hundred thousand.” When he spoke of Lebensraum, the German drive for “living space” in Eastern Europe, he often had America in mind.

…Enslavement of African-Americans was written into the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson spoke of the need to “eliminate” or “extirpate” Native Americans. In 1856, an Oregonian settler wrote, “Extermination, however unchristianlike it may appear, seems to be the only resort left for the protection of life and property.” General Philip Sheridan spoke of “annihilation, obliteration, and complete destruction.”

America’s knack for maintaining an air of robust innocence in the wake of mass death struck Hitler as an example to be emulated. He made frequent mention of the American West in the early months of the Soviet invasion. The Volga would be “our Mississippi,” he said. “Europe—and not America—will be the land of unlimited possibilities.” Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine would be populated by pioneer farmer-soldier families. Autobahns would cut through fields of grain. The present occupants of those lands—tens of millions of them—would be starved to death.

…When Hitler praised American restrictions on naturalization, he had in mind the Immigration Act of 1924, which imposed national quotas and barred most Asian people altogether. For Nazi observers, this was evidence that America was evolving in the right direction, despite its specious rhetoric about equality.

If we turn this around, we see the truth: Hitler was not anomalous, but merely carrying on in a mechanistic, ultra-modern way the behaviors of the past. Specifically, he realized that this was a war against Asian expansion, even if it came through the Eurasians in the Soviet Union. The point has always been to make Western Europe dominant, to drive back the mixed-race and Asiatic, so that Western Europe has a buffer zone and can focus on fixing itself by undoing the past centuries of damage.

There seems to be little remorse or sympathy here. Few people in the mostly Hindu village are talking about the inhumanity of the crime or the fact that the girl’s traumatized parents have fled. Barred from burying their daughter near their home, the family had to take her body with them.

Instead, you hear things like: Our land and their land. Us and them.

…The motive for the crime, investigators say, was nothing less than ethnic cleansing.

People are figuring out that pluralism is a scam. Pluralism, or the idea that your local area can be both Muslim and Hindu, means that newcomers are tolerated until they can breed enough people and drive you out. This means that Hindus lose, and so they are retaliating, much as Germany did with Nazism. This approach will not work for the same reason: you cannot fight soft genocide with hard genocide; you can only win by seizing political power and relocating the other group.

What they found especially egregious was Wax and Alexander’s observation that “All cultures are not equal.” That hissing noise you hear is the sharp intake of breath at the utterance of such a sentiment. The tort was compounded by Wax’s later statements in an interview that “Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans” because “Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior.”

…As William Henry argued back in the 1990s in his undeservedly neglected book In Defense of Elitism, “the simple fact [is] that some people are better than others—smarter, harder working, more learned, more productive, harder to replace.” Moreover, Henry continued, “Some ideas are better than others, some values more enduring, some works of art more universal.” And it follows, he concluded, that “Some cultures, though we dare not say it, are more accomplished than others and therefore more worthy of study. Every corner of the human race may have something to contribute. That does not mean that all contributions are equal. . . . It is scarcely the same thing to put a man on the moon as to put a bone in your nose.”

Apparently, no one bothered to think about what “equality” means. On the surface, it means that you treat everyone as if they were equal, but in reality, since they are not equal, that form of equality would still end in inequality, so instead it means that you subsidize the weaker. You deny their failings. You give them an extra boost. You champion their cause.

In the future, people will realize that equality is a destructive human virus that causes pathological self-destructive behavior. Like pacifism, it promises a life without struggle, which creates a uniform mediocrity because struggle is how improvement occurs. It also banishes the possibility of every finding better methods, since all must be equal so no culture is shamed by its failing methods.

Trump added that Amazon’s lobbying staff does not “include the Fake Washington Post” and that the newspaper, which is owned by billionaire and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, is a “lobbyist” and should register accordingly.

…The president has often conflated Bezos’ dual roles as Post owner and Amazon CEO. The two entities are separate.

Technically… Eckshually… the two roles are separate, by definition. He owns the Post, and he serves as CEO at Amazon. In reality, he is in power at least through indirect influence in both places. The media uses a technicality to lie when they truth threatens them, and this is how the coasts have been manipulating the center of America for decades.

You would think people would learn. You would be wrong. People engage in the same old patterns, get the same bad results, and then rationalize the failure. Such is the case with the ongoing diversity experiment in South Africa, in which we are learning that when “racism” becomes illegal, it is only enforced against the population perceived to be highest.

Estate agent Vicki Momberg was sentenced on Wednesday to an effective two years in prison, following a racist rant towards police and emergency service workers which was caught on camera in February 2016 and which occurred after Momberg had experienced a smash-and-grab. The sentence was applauded by many for its strong anti-racism message, but also raises important questions about justice and society.

…One of the few bodies to voice criticism about the sentence was lobby group AfriForum, which said the ruling “confirms double standards in South Africa regarding race”.

Afriforum said that Momberg’s racist comments needed to be condemned, but questioned why the same approach was not taken towards black people who insulted white South Africans.

This double standard is not anomalous. Equality does not exist in nature, or we would not need to strive for it (as Leftists suggest we do). This means we are imposing it, and since we cannot make the lower more competent, it means penalizing the competent — the weak eating the strong — so that they can subsidize the less competent. This is the root of wealth transfer, socialism, diversity, and all other equality-based policy.

Some 13 European thinkers issued an intellectual protest late last year against the assault on the Western heritage that has been raging on the Continent and in Britain for years. They called their 11-page document “The Paris Statement” and gave it a title: “A Europe We Can Believe In.” The Europe they believe in, write the 13 signatories (well-known in Europe, less so in America), is under threat of destruction from the forces of globalization, multiculturalism, and the EU managerial class, as well as growing anti-Christian prejudice.

…But we are witnessing the emergence of some powerful political currents within the general European population, manifest in increasingly populist voting patterns in France, Germany, Austria, and elsewhere. Hence the Paris Statement could become a significant intellectual underpinning for Europeans who are increasingly concerned about the direction of things in their homeland.

…The threat to Europe, says the Statement, comes from “a false understanding” of what Europe is and represents. This “false Europe” is the product of people who are “orphans by choice,” glorifying their vision “as the forerunner of a universal community that is neither universal nor a community.”

…The true Europe, on the other hand, encompasses a number of fundamental elements—a body of law that applies to all yet is limited in its demands; a shared understanding of political and cultural traditions and a fealty to those traditions; an appreciation of the nation state as “the political form that joins peoplehood with sovereignty”; a shared regard for the role of the Classical tradition in shaping the Western mind; and an understanding of Christianity as the religious bulwark of the civilization.

While this is a good start, they have not identified the problem. Since The Renaissance,™ the West has adored egalitarianism, or the idea that everyone can be an individualist together and things will turn out just fine. Instead, this brings about a mob mentality, which in turn weakens us morally and then, makes us hate ourselves for being whores.

Until people are willing to confront that, they are wasting their time as far as trying to save a civilization. They call for a renewed nationalism of “the political form that joins peoplehood with sovereignty” and a cultural revival, and these are great things, but without removing equality — including democracy, consumerism, diversity, feminism, and the other individualist “me first” ideas — it will go nowhere.

Want to see the free market at work in politics? Trump cut out ahead of the team by daring to talk about immigration and demographic replacement, so now former cucks are realizing that in order to compete and not get cut out like recent failed Republican candidates for local elections, they will have to take the lead back from Trump. Mitt may someday realize that his “47% comment” was his chance for the presidency and when he backed down off of that, he did irreparable damage to his brand. Maybe he can revitalize it however.

You can tell that an idea is a walking corpse when people start viewing it as optional. In this life, what is not necessary is dead, and diversity has proven useless for finding high quality staffers, so it is being discarded. As this spreads, there will be a challenge to affirmative action, and if that falls, what makes this country so attractive to immigration will be effectively reduced. If the welfare state also falls, relatively few will want to come here.

Across the globe, nationalist and xenophobic sentiment is rising. Why? Diversity is genocide, and people do not want to be genocided. Sometimes it takes the unfortunate form of rancor or scorn for other groups, but this will quickly be seized by saner minds who realize that all they have to do is say that diversity does not work.